W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New








Hi Ben, what did you think of that lecture ?

An irrational rambling. The guy has everything come from nothing,  from what is NOT always there, and so from what CANNOT produce ANYTHING.

He does not appear to realise that when you do that, you are violating logical law. You need to consult cause.

Did you read Causes on Webwitness ?

Yes and SMR Ch. 5 as well, AND Predestination and Freewill Section IV.

You are a mental machine.

Rubbish, it is good to hear what is being left out in lectures like that one we have just had!

Agreed. Instead of nothing plus begging the question by importing ever so many things as if forgetting that they have to have a reason (forget reason, and you cannot even argue at all - a sort of intellectual suicide, sad but removing the issues), we look for SOMETHING.

AND eternal, since if EVER there were nothing, then ALWAYS there would be that, speaking of the entirety, for there is no potential in nothing, or if you will, nothing has no potential, and if it produced anything, the thing in view would merely be proved NOT to be nothing.

Something eternal and causative. That is the only option.

Naturally, for there is much to be done when it comes to having things COME to be.

Yes, I have thought about that. There is foundation, so that it should BE.

And there is formation, so that it be formed, and so be in a assignable fashion.

Next information, so that the thing created is dirigible, and not a shadow flickering without designability.

It has to concern BOTH the thing and the environment for it, in terms of which, in part, it is to be defined - especially in terms of action and reaction.

Then function has to be brought into being likewise. This acts in terms of laws for continuity and causal efficacy, such as we find, providing specificity and correlativity, and so characterisability. the thing in view, be it item or cosmos or universe, at each level does something, is special for it, does it in an environment or collection of objects on the one hand, and of principles affecting contiguity, how things relate at close quarters, as of cohesion, at any and every level. The major types of entity have to contain character and show it both in resistance to spattering and readiness for diffusion within containing rules. Thus the whole retains it own characterisability (cf. Repent or Perish Ch. 7). What you have got is what had to be produced, innate and reactive, systematic and open not only to forces of form but those of function. It works its way on, cosily characterisable as a comprehensive constitution lf myriads of items, embraced in a holding pattern. That is the case with every level of major entity.

It could be, you know, that what you have in view in this overview,  are atoms or molecules or cells or persons.

Denton points out that no primitive cells exist (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 109, 250ff., cf. The Great Divide, Ch. 2)*1. They are all ordered, organised, just like the categories of living things, what he calls hierarchically laid out, with variability control and limits,  and gaps shown in micro-biology, between kinds. In nature, he points out, the ONLY place where continuity is found, in terms of the array of creatures, is in the mind of man. It is an illusion, not an allusion. It is not there. Things fail to attest gliding into each other on the major scale, as if innumerable rabbits were to be drawn out of untold hats, without an actor or agent.

Stubbornly, they rather attest in life, their hierarchical relationships to one another, governed from above, not merging laterally  into each other. However like, to use an analogy for illustration, the various types of aeroplane may be, merging is not their genesis, but creation, the likeness in some respects seeming small, but in fact a marvel of mathematics, miniaturisation and methodology. In our own creativity, we are intensely aware of such things. To take another illustration, merging the like play of Macbeth into King Lear might seem relatively easy, for they have various outstanding characters caught in a moral mesh and a wilful wander, whose ways are exposed, just as the results are imposed, and in classical language we find enormous affinity between them. Surely Macbeth was just adjusted here and there to become King Lear. Perhaps there was some defect in the latter case, of energic impulse!

It is necessary to avoid being immersed in reductionism, which does not realise the magnificence of what a creation is. How a literary agent might be appalled by such an ignorance of the very nature of plays, as would be exposed in a merger concept, the one growing out of the other. Creation DOES have a significant control, differentiation, degree of methodological similarity, but a vast difference as one can see when at all alert to the differentiae, the dynamics, the quality and the finale of each creation, each KIND.

Yes, each one must FUNCTION, as it is.

Fulfilment comes next, for if there is something graded and paraded and evidencing in a world of multiple specifications in space and time and law and direction, together with multiplied programmatics as in DNA and the like, then the thing in view either reaches operability or not. If it does, as is the norm in cellular structures as far as what is in them is concerned, then that represents fulfilment of a massive line of multiplied layers and organised operations of a mutually relevant nature*2 .

Cells in organs, organs in systems, systems with automatic and voluntary species of control, computer-like brain to direct, and then beyond all this, the dynamics of mentality with its resources of reason, and the desiderata of spirit, with its designing, imaginative and volitional resources, all these are just AREAS for convergence in fulfilment of such a creation as man; each with its own basics; connections to other realms; features of focus; and fulfilment to be what specifically it is. Sports cars can in type, be similar, some valued as if they were totally different, even though sporting type cars already, with their own name; but yet their various special features can transform them, till comparison becomes mere folly, the genius of creation bringing in both the similarlty (of type) and the reasons for hype! Creation is like that; that is its nature; and we know by hundreds of thousands of our own creations, and their comparison.

No great operation of such components is to be denied the concept of fulfilment when its prodigious order, organisation and programmed production lines, energic provisons and the like, as in life, come to be. That is to ignore the evidence of all great designs, and designs are precisely those operations just as described evidentially: that is their criterion, and the only thing then in question, is at what LEVEL is the design evident. If it were an aircraft factory, for example, with a place for paying wages, turning on power, assembly lines, mutual interpretability of various sub-fields with each other and so on, then that constitutes design, for such things are never found to so act of themselves, and whatever might be the case in some other world, our task is to describe this one.

So there is the necessity in looking at all that there is, to have FOUNDATION (1), so that such objects exist. Then formation, information, function and unity with fulfilment. That is all involved. That requires the Creator.

But that  is only part. We need also the POWER (II). This entails one empowered.

Indeed, as we saw,  you need power first to make a thing to BE, then to be FORMED, INFORMED, FUNCTIONAL in unity and FULFILLED.

 But that is not enough. Power is barren without direction; atomic bombs are illustration. You must place power to the point.

Right! Protection then is also required for operability (and the universe DOES operate). Direction is needed, and protection of direction within solemn limits!

Not only that, but inspection is also in order; for a project to last, it needs to be estimated, considered, watched. Even if perfect, in a world where impacts of all sorts are available for devastation or optimisation, whichever, the power to check things out is needed. Things have the facility for logical inspection by us, and how much more by the ETERNAL CREATIVE BEING who made US with our power to inspect.

This has to be provided, and in some respects is present in some of the editorial, text conservation functions which are in the DNA, indeed especially in the area formerly misnamed 'junk', but now found to house an entire and necessary provision of guided dynamic to achieve  conservation and control of the DNA.

That is particular. Yet beyond such detail, there is the overall, supra-systematic need for oversight of all systems, all provisions; for not all is so automated that we find available to the mind, the methods either of institution or continuation.

Yes, you are right. It all requires a cause of the utmost competence, penetrating into all creativity.

It has much more than plus and minus elements, such as turning on the switch for activating DVD reading, for your TV.

Yes, the LORD is very deep. How some imagine that THEY are deep, when our superficiality is displayed over and gain, like a stuck record, in people, families and nations, in the entire planet, and our slowness to learn, is a mystery of vanity.

I could not agree more. When the Creator of all this decides to leave undone a necessary element of supervisory control, then He who "upholds all things by the word of His power," as in Hebrews 1, may have in mind, even for this,  an element of judgment, to help people to realise both His indispensability and His application, and their need for mercy (as in Amos 4, or Ezekiel 20). This can serve very well as an index to the labours of maintenance required, or actually constitute a rebuke for a period in any people, of trivialising truth - and these are merely examples of the wisdom of the One who not only is exceedingly conscientious, but loving ...

Yes, and that with an intensity which cuts no corners, and leaves much to be discerned by those who have ears and eyes (cf. Matthew 13:15ff.).

Thus prophecy is often provided to attest the reality and provide the reason for such inactions, suspensions and woes (cf. The Pitter-Patter of Prophetic Feet).

But let us continue in our listing of features.

Assuredly. Indeed, you need  to have the base for what in the universe gifted to us, of CHARACTERISABILITY, that continued consistency of law and conformity, in which things are specifiable and notable and verbalisable, as they are; and so shown as distinct from what never has any features for focus or recognition.

Yes, this is what enables them to be termed this or that. With this feature added AND conserved, parts of and the whole of creation is then ready for verbal depiction, conceptual consideration and placement in the overall matrix.

To do that, you would need a very special distinctiveness, such as possessed by man, the verbaliser, who can depict and communicate what it does have, at any given level.

Sure and he can learn; and become corrupt in self-indulgence, as if he knew it all. Yet very often he does not even know himself, treating his wonderful features like a spoilt child,. never satisfied, too corrupt to deploy and SEE.

That is if he opens his eyes: some specialise in trying to stare down facts; but facts never go away, despite the magical tendencies of some illiterate philosophies.

What do you mean by that phrase ?

Oh, that they do not verbalise things except either with vast omissions, and distortions, under the control of some preconception which aborts what is there to be perceived, and refuses the causal impetus of what is minimally required to get this.

 SO it ALL needs to be created, and instituted by POWER as well as recipient of CHARACTERISABILITY CO-ORDINATION (III).

It is well-bred,  certainly! It has a good heredity, beginning, set up and structure. What a source it has!

Does not one of the Psalms ask: HE who made the ear, shall He not hear!

That's Psalm 94.

Good, well then, it is so. The sourcing of the totality and its ways indicates the power and presence of the Eternal One.


it was so originated, focussed and rendered functional ?

The Operations of Purpose

But this leads on to the whole point of WHY it was so originated, focussed and rendered functional.

That leads to the point, what is purpose ?

WE know what it is, since we use purpose all the time.

What is it ?

It consists in awareness of possibilities, provided through knowledge and imagination, and selection from among them.

But it can be more than this. What of the power to envisage something not seen, not exemplified, and test among available powers for ways to invent it, using whatever is about, combining, synthesising, building in steps to obtain the eventual desideratum ?  What of originality of thought ?

Good. Then in looking at purpose, we have awareness of observable and imaginable or desirable identities,  functions and objects, ranging from things seen to those unseen*3, exemplified or not, and instituting procedures to get these.

I am not sure you have it all yet. What about desirable subjects ?

Do you mean that we could desire to make something that thinks ?

No, that is obviously impossible for anyone but the Being who has power to make spirits: we are mere recipients of those delightful capacities, gift of God. Our best efforts are merely a plausible substitute for making a spirit, which has its own purposes and thought and capacities able to control or call on the mental, the psychic, the spiritual and the moral. We are bereft of the kind of power and imagination and facility at the personal level, to MAKE spirits*3A. That is where we are, delegated, derivative spirits.

We use these things however in our lives - it is good at times to look  at what we have and not absurd extensions so literally based on nothing that it is the same fault of begging the question as in the originating concept, when this is based on nothing, plus you JUST GET this and that.

What then do you mean  ?

It is not only objects you may want: it is thoughts, ideas, understanding.

Then you can have a purpose definition to cover that ?

Yes, I think it is there. So we extend our concept and definition of purpose. It becomes more like this:

In terms of purpose:

we have awareness of observable, imaginable or desirable identities,  functions or objects,
or some combination, from things seen or unseen, exemplified or not,
and when this turns to desire, and  is applied, we may seek to institute
or activate procedures to gain these entities or involvements,
whether these be mental, spiritual or other,
or engage in seeking ways to find them where they are.

Good. That is purpose. We know it subjectively, and all its ways and steps, reservoirs and activatable modes, what it is like, how it relates to our  spirits, the mode of its incitation, or stimulation and the sort of research and effort to gain it. It is constantly in operation within us. It is better known that the size of our hands or the appearance of our  faces. We are near it constantly.  It is not alien or odd, but as intimate as life itself.

Ah! so there is an external aspect of purpose too. It is subjective ad infinitum, or nearly so; but it is also a matter for observation outside ourselves.

But certainly, for that is part of observation, scrutiny and watchful awareness of our fellows from early years. It is just as well known as the subjective kind, though there are questions of precise interpretation at times.

So we may ask someone, What is your purpose ? or, Why are you doing that ?

And we may have a very good idea what it is, but what is it that summons us to ask this question ?

It is the awareness both of our own subjective understanding of the way these things form and are moved, when we may elect to  move with them, and no less, drawing on our observation over the years of the allied functions in others.

You mean, seeing over time in interchange with others, the results of stated or implied purpose, and noting the special relationship of special results to this particular cause...

To wit, purpose.


In dealing with others then, WHEN do you consider there IS a purpose,  and so look for its precise nature ? Is it not when you find that things are not moving in a normal manner, that is, without evidencing any such intervention or construable intention, but have something more.

What is that then ?

It is some attestation of an additive of thrust, like the wake of a boat, or of energy/direction/intervention/operation of special powers,directed to an apparent end/focus of a sequence not to be found without such thrusts of directed energy.

That is as common as life.

About so. Thus when we look for purpose more generally, we have a picture, image, depiction,  classificatory system in terms of which we construe; and when there is a distortion of the norm, a direction to the distortion, a grooming of events to such an end, a continuity in the frames one by one, as they come to this abnormal but not necessarily uncommon result, we look. We consider on finding such things on display, that the pattern, the propulsion and the meaning is readily interpretable, if not as to precise machination, then as to machination of some kind: or purpose.

In short, we see the proportions, the propulsions, the power of purpose.

Yes, and we can so act, not only in seeing our own thoughts, reading as far as we may, those of other through their actions over time, but we may equally ponder the parallel case in what is already there.

What do you mean by that ?

We can similarly set out to read what purpose is to be attested, for example, in the construction of the human body.

There is a vast arena there, area, factory site, inventive genius, use of technicality at the service of spirit. Could we itemise just a little, to get the overall thrust of its creation ?

Minute things called atoms,  congregations of them  called molecules, aggregations of these in vessels, in organs, the latter with segments or multi-functions or combinations of orders or organisation to make such functions, and systems in which the organic functions inhere,  for which their works are a contribution, and then controls, such as the various nervous systems, and then inputs from hormones, themselves produced in systems or organs, and these combining with cerebral input and purposive capacitation, design on various stations within the whole, leading to results in power to act as one item, a person. This is precisely the attestation of purpose, and in our case, amidst the conditions of the cosmos, it is unique in kind.

What its precise purpose IS, remains at first, something of a question; but it can be answered not a little as you see in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock and That Magnificent Rock, which covers also many areas. I mean these are just a start as you see in webwitness, in the Search listing.

But let us proceed now a little. When there is such integrally intricate equipment put in usable premises, there is the question of the key, meaning, the way to find out, how to make it maximally functional in the midst of the array of blight and fury plainly seen in this world. There is need of information not only about how to make the next generation, as discernible in the DNA, but of how ANY generation is to operate.

Yes, it is needed that there be communication as a handbook intimation, information compilation or the like. As seen in Barbs ...p. 6 - 7 and SMR and many other works on this site, there is a necessity for such communication in our own special case; and there is a verifiable and validated form and gen for the sure attestation of this. I noted it in The Way of Truth and the Way of Error Ch. 8, *2 where such sites as It Bubbles ... Ch. 9. *2 are listed with others.

That is detail, though it is dynamic and essential. But let us pursue purpose in general a little more.

Why then you could also say that purpose is the name given to an embrace of a series of considerations leading to a concatenated series of consequences, which may be read or discerned, as does cause.

You could. It can be evidenced directly or indirectly, like a financial transaction, sometimes through complex media.

In fact, it can be seen evidenced and attested subjectively in oneself, verifiably in others, and in the works of such a character as fit into the spectrum of considerations we roused at the first, and then refined a little.

You can have it in instinct, where it is not thought out by the operator, but by the creator. You can have it in creatures like horses or dogs, when it is partly thought out, and partly intimated by instinct; even by intuition in some advanced cases in the scale of being.

In man you have it more perfectly, like gold dust often washed. Here consciousness may intervene, even to arrest instinct (as when dying and so sacrificing for another), and may survey it, and options as well as inventing some of them, and calling upon God if so desired, for it is one option, another one. That gets a substantial treatment, if I recall, in Glory, Vainglory and Goodness, ah - I think, Ch. 2.

At the operational level, purpose may be apparent IN the person, or THROUGH the person, and this as part of the purpose, or even contrary to it, in the case of desired deception.

True. And indicated in the works. However it is part of our purposes to discern behind deception; and as data mounts, so does the attestation of the purpose in view.

The purpose, then,  may be articulated by the one who has it, or by the one who sees it from its external evidence, as a unique type of thing.

Reductionism sends me into  spasms of laughter*3A.

Take it easy. You never know where the rules of some organisation for the purpose of keeping you stable may thus be violated.

Stop sounding like an old woman.

Two bars of condemnation from what is proper (the purposes of current political advisers,  religious exponents never appointed for THAT particular purpose), I fear.  Never mind, I know what you mean. Still, to be completely serious and to the point, purpose, like thought, like any scientific or other purposive intent, has to be sensitively recognised, not reduced with a wand to something else, nor imagined when the evidence is not sure.

What makes it sure ?

That is what was included in our definition of purpose: the increasingly co-ordinated and co-activated elements contrary to norm, moving in an assignable direction of their own, leading to a result of some kind of integrality.

What is that ?

Just the operation of the thing as ITSELF (like you or me), an entity that is distinct from others and contra-distinct from others, achieving its interference pattern, delivering from itself a product or contribution in the midst of what is otherwise lacks this unique imprint... that of purpose.

Design - you know the book Deity or Design ... and so on - design then and purpose are very closely related.

Certainly: for is not design which can be used as the utter correlative of purpose. You ACT to get something using imagination and understanding, purpose, and you get a result, a design to fit the imagination and the purpose.

If you succeed. You designed to get this. That is even another way of saying, purposed, except that it specialises on the significant level of thought involved in securing such a purpose.



is so appallingly horrid ?

That is what makes it so appalling horrid that so many are so propagandised, as if corpses ready for being swept on by a river current, that they do not SEE that the LACK of ANY total mess-ups, failures and technical oddities, ruined mathematical rorts and so forth, in the presence of system inter-systematised, as we have considered earlier, means that the path is in one direction. I mean, list the foozles in terms of TECHNICAL failures ( I don't mean those so often requiring correction for recognised specialised experts, but actual ones). Show where cells by the billion did not make it, detritus of frustration, or other items, inundating the record; and this the more as we now find DNA preserved in things formerly imagined to be millions of years old! We find in many genres, abundant, even swamping attestation of success; but no parallel on the other side. The evidence is of competence; and of desolatory consequences not a little, not IN what is made, but FOR it, by events of a magnitude that is that of judgment. ait reminds me of something which is a relatively trivial case illustrating a fundamental principle.

What do you have in mind ?

Well, there is the beautiful systematic correlation of mechanisms and electric elements in your car, and you forget to put oil in it.

A frazzled ruin does not suggest bad mechanics, but an overwhelming affliction: in this case, your negligence. Yes the design does not let up, till the recalcitrant reductionist has completely blatantly to pretend that the definition does not fit. I like that element in Deity and Design Chs.   2 and   8, at different levels.

And that, it is design, for purpose IS a design, and we even use the word in that way: do you have DESIGNS on me ? and so forth. Purpose is an immaterial design, a mental designation that is designing what is to be sought. When it IS, then the design - that is intention - becomes a design, an integrated series of elements brought together and drawn up as a totality, set to achieve its selected result. When it is invariable in technical perfection (a point noted even by Denton, in his well-presented Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, Ch. 8 ), then it is a very heady design. When it is way ahead, as is the case, of anything which we have ourselves, in our own designing mental boards and spiritual dreams and desires, then it is time to look for the Designer, and realising who He is, to give good attention to His words. We ARE what far surpasses what we can DO.

It is infinitely better than imagining things never found, and so rushing off in pursuit of a purely illusory and even illusional rationale,  that we follow in terms of purpose, things habitually found as a constant in ordered living.

Scientifically, how would you be. You look for what explains something, consider it, apply it, seek to verify it, or unverify it, to rebut it, and when you are done, you have chosen the evidential route, the path of conversance with like phenomena, where to the maximum, means already attested, are related on trial. On the other hand, the contradiction even of LAWS, even universal and foundational ones as in Physics, is a woeful abuse of scientific method. I read about that in TMR Ch. 1, Scientific Method ..., TMR Ch. 1, and I believe, Ch. 8

Yes. You mean then that as men freely imagine things in their inventive and free minds (despite the limitations which sin=prejudice in this case, would bind), then what is scientific is what as far as may be found, matches, a great constraint, and so you look for what has ground in observation, concatenation, what is assimilable both to evidence and other relevant features of that form of correlativity.

Certainly. Thus the anti-scientific option is to go far from this, like a passing comet, soon in the undiscernible distance. It is to dismiss design and purpose where their attestations are found because they are not assimiable to reductionist prejudice, however absolute is their conformity to scientific method, for selection.

Just as it is scientific method to accept what is explicative, experimentally visible or comprehensible as ground, and where it lands most perfectly for investigative thought, to put that forward as preferred hypothesis, so the method of antagonism, of what I think of as the Cult of the Forbidden*4 (as an analogy would be like purely irrational racism), means that irrationality rules, science is defunct in this, and as Lord Zuckerman, in his lofty post during World War II, attacked in his excellent book, Beyond the Ivory Tower. In that, he insisted on abandoning abandon, and being ruled by evidence, not aspiration or prejudice, or current ruling ideas, based on nothing so much as desire or convention or tradition or a sort of mud-stuck revving about out moving with the evidence.

Yes I remember his special field was multi-variate analysis relative to skeletons, bones and the like, and he thundered against superficial conclusions without adequate objective evidence.

There is an enormous parallel there. With design and purpose, the present nature myth popularly taught as organic evolution is the precise breach of known laws, as we just noted, the ignoring of currently intimately known actions of this type, and the importation of what is NEVER found as the basis. It is child's play. We need people of understanding, before this world is dispensed with, very understandably, for its provocations are innumerable.

Let's get back to reality. The Creator's purpose is first of all obviously to make such a universe as this one: filled with goodness, virtue, understanding, comprehension, law and work; and with opposite blighting dynamic, with evil, unscrupulousness, hatred of fellow creatures, of the Creator, trying to wipe out the one by force, guns and the like, and the other by lies, irrationality and their ilk.

Why is it like that ?

Being a creator, as man is, in his own little but significant way,  MEANS having options, and if you do not want to enjoy reality, or worship your Creator, then you simply add to the rebellion which like other purposes, coming into a characterisable way into the midst of thing, is discernible, and shows itself in detectable ways; and is made the more readily perceptible in this.

In what then ?

In that we ourselves may have rebelled against this or that, and know not a little of the ingredients for rebellion, its motivation, activations, contexts and twists and torments; and if not, at least can most readily understand them; for what man never had temptation! Here its product is so gross that the good may not even be discerned.

That reminds me of a shut-down when a factory excludes workers.

Yes it does. If man is free in part, in no small part, however polluted he manages to make his personality, especially with aid from indoctrinators who often so act while bearing the name of teachers, being commissioned to exclude vital evidence, themselves sometimes FORBIDDEN to use and apply it, then so is nature to repay him.

You mean, as in Psalm 1, if you forget God then you are like chaff which the wind blows away; but the Lord KNOWS the path of His saints, of those who know HIM ?

Yes, I do.

God may intervene IF HIS purpose at that point is to alter things in the way already we have investigated in terms of what a purpose is and DOES. It may be by withdrawing a measure of supervision, or by empowering an enemy to teach a people that if they won't serve God, then there are far more demanding options to have served on you. He may cease empowering a people, who come to take it for granted, forgetting God and imagining their own niceness or tradition will save them, pure bluster. 

If so, it may be by means miraculous or providential; but He also does it, as in the incarnation, in the resurrection in lowering into place, the remedial site, free and fervently presented, sound and unchanging, more regular than any law, more immovable than any principle of man.

When it comes to that, not an episode merely, but an entire Age-operation to deliver, operative for  the entire realm, as you find in Colossians 1:19ff., then what you get is  an OVERALL purpose, to save, to seek the lost and He tells us in Colossians as in I Timothy 2, THAT HE would like ALL people in heaven or on earth to be RECONCILED to Himself, to be brought to the knowledge of the truth; and in John 3, there sits the correlative, that He so LOVED that He sent His only begotten Son that WHOEVER believes in Him might be saved. 

It was not just an offshoot either.

Yes, He also had another PURPOSE; and that was NOT to condemn the world. On the contrary it was to save it.

So with that positive ane that negative purpose, you have the desire in the love of God, exhibited to the limit where there is nothing left to do,  to show mercy to all, but NOT at the expense of liberty. Without liberty,  there is no possibility of love, which involves free response, not control by outer forces; and without that life is a husk.

Yes, for without liberty,  LOVE is IMPOSSIBLE, and without love, salvation would have been impossible, for it was God who took the pains, securing liberty in love through His own liberty to redeem, so conquering the otherwise immovable work of justice (Psalm 89:14, Romans 3:23ff, II Corinthians 5:17ff.). What makes it even more perfect is this,  that God made man in His own image, and since what is not material has no space, it means that man was gifted with fellowship potential, and power to understand, rejoice in the truth and know the benefits of peace. Love thus has meaning, and its rejection more of it!

That Lecture we just had.

It is not just a matter of its being derisible, for constantly contradicting science method in the name of science, taking the unexampled, imagining the never seen, and acting on that basis when the opposite, creation is constantly seen, but never now in inanimate nature. The Bible stated the reality of creation, basis of the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, and the finished it, leaving open with the curse, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, with its downgrade of available energy, entropy. It is finished; but we are not.

We are drawing near.

Jerusalem, yes, it is back from Gentile rule; and how some of the Gentiles hate this! They seem all but unable to cease from anti-Semitism, making foul talk about Jews seeking to defend their already hideously cut-down land, with the gift of most of Palestine to Jordan. Yet their enemies want more; so the gift of tthe Gaza strip; and now they want more, perhaps in view of ungrateful rockets then sent from Gaza, to make anti-rocket action impossible.

Well, if the word and will of God as in Genesis 17:7-8, is detested, and    if man wants to apportion real estate and real redemption and their connection as his own autonomy directs, then Jerusalem epitomises restriction.  Understandable, you know in view of Luke 21:24; for in terms of this, the CITY'S  RECAPTURE by an Israel which was predicted to come back brings near the return of Christ because to capture you have to BE first, in this case to be a nation, and so it is, back ...

That was really investigated in Christ the Cumulative and the Culmination Ch. 6.

Understandable, like cancer, but as deadly; for now there are many who cannot rest, but strive, bomb and talk, in all trying to wrest the great city from Jewish control, using even not-so-subtle pressure to force Jews, already having given Gaza, to void part of their Capital, and hand it peaceably to those on record for seeking what is in fact genocide, and putting the plan into operation more than once!  Just yield half of the city back to the enemies who have expressly from 1948 days, when Israel was re-founded, sought to dominate, exterminate or denigrate. A simple matter of giving back part of their capital city, their own and for millenia their only one, their religious centre and basic central site of the nation, to races which have many a large nation, many millions both in funds and people, and anxious desire in many cases, if not to intimidate the world by unfeeling violence, then at least to gain rule over it.

Do you remember that case of the Sudanese boys where we found some background for this in Islam : I believe that may have been in Divine Agenda Ch. 6.

There seem many only too willing to exterminate Israel, in direct confrontation with the word of God, which selects for such industrious assault on what God has expressly planned, a rebuff on Exodus type scale! Remember that in Micah 7, Ezekiel 38-39, Zechariah 12-14, Isaiah 66, Deuteronomy 32 ?

You've been studying.

Why not: this case is a study!

How dumb do they think Israel is ?

Well, they try to force the USA through fear or treachery at the top, to fear or favour the Moslem cause, and so to exercise pressure on tiny and valiant Israel, to GIVE UP what they have in a tiny State, from which most as intended by the League of Nations has already been sent off as we noted, to Jordan, the actual Palestine major grab, and so render its defence not only ridiculous, but requiring the expressly miraculous.

And that is the true defence, to which no traitor can bring ruin, predicted as in Micah 7, Isaiah 66, Deuteronomy 32, and the others that you said, with the result at length of the return, restoration and installation of Jesus the Messiah whose kingdom will rule whose feet will stand on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:5), and whose rule will be a glory (Psalm 72, Isaiah 11).

That lovely bit in Revelation 11:15: "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of our Lord
and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever."
It will be all the world, the sticking point of Jerusalem just a prelude.

We will have the impact of Uni rule on us,  if we do not get of the next Class, and hand in our assignments.

Let's go.

In hope of some mitigation of propaganda! for in some teachers, it seems almost an obsessive compulsion.

They have to conform...

And do so, some against conscience, and in this area,  all against reason.

Some teach otherwise.

Short terms can move fast, with dismissal or attempts to undermine, abuse authority or make cavils that have no weight, but express an intense hatred, an abomination, of the logical necessities of God and His creation, expectation and communication, rules and principles.

Alas, often they faithful lecturers are  often cut short; and the time to end tis abuse, it is getting shorter.

Well, it  is a short term before the Lord returns, so let us be  inundated even by these twisty seas and tsunami towerings, bearing down with ostentatious power.

The Lord is my light and my salvation. Whom should I fear ?



Ben ?

Yes James, hurry up.

Do you think they could have a Tomb to the Forgotten Student ?
The victim of misguided academic religious enterprise, disguised in other raiment...

Like wolves.


God does not forget His own students, we have that comfort. Indeed Paul spoke of it ... Acts 20:29, II Timothy 4...






In p. 250 of the cited work, on the crisis in evolutionary thought, Denton points out that:

bullet "Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same
in all living systems on earth from bacteria to animals.
In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical.

The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells*1.
The size, structure and component design
of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells.
In terms of their basic biochemical design,
therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive
or ancestral with respect to any other system,
nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence
among all the incredibly divers dwellers on earth."

Denton in a later work appears to have sought to have an unempirical concept of things NOT interrupted with diverse miracles to account for creation, but endowed at the first with the potential to inject big jumps from an initial design. He is noted as urging that it would be far better to do this than continually interfere (cf. Nature's Destiny).

Interfere ? This is scarcely worthy of serious consideration.

If you wish to attack something, you need first to know what it is. The concept of interfering with 'nature' and its laws in order to create it so that it could exist is a hybrid. It is as far from the Bible as the stars from the earth, and further, since it does not even bear any relationship at all, except negation's call. Nature CANNOT, biblically if that is what you have in mind comparatively to something else, as here appears, be interfered with until it is there. You cannot rationally speak of interfering with a child before it is conceived. Nature is LAID down in the most directly conceivable manner by supernatural power exercising its supernatural nature to invent the derived natural field with its surrounding laws, controls, limits, linguistic messages, including those concerning the arrival and construction of the bodies of the next generation.

NOTHING is interfered with, as God speaks and it is done in the specifications stated in Genesis. Genesis 2 tells us that all of the events of Ch. 1 were thus covered, and so much so was it finished, that not only is it specified as to the number of days involved, but that God then rested, having finished it. After all, He had "ended His work." If it was creation, He had done it. If there were kinds (cf. Spiritual Food and Drink Ch. 12,   *2), they were articulated and founded. If creation was to continue like a motor with the keys turned off, then it was not His!

A creation creating itself, after being created by Him, is not to be found in the Bible or empirically. Kinds continued; God rested; it was all done, whatever was creation.

Any attempt to get a 'nature's own' variety of creation, even if it were by program, or other interference with the nature of things, it would not be finished creation which held it, for after all, when something is created and finished, you do not have new chapters added, or old ones revisited! Finish is not a new beginning.  New types of creation are not the end of it. There is to be one, to be sure, an entire new creation with the despatch of the old one (as in a rubbish basket when the thing is done, redeeming some parts!). Of this II Peter 3 tells us as does Revelation.

This however is the new heavens and new earth; for this one is to be judged, not fudged, and destiny is by appointment and assessment, not by a gloriously self-making juggernaut. John 3 spells it out for those who imagine 'finished' is just a beginning. The good news is that carping criticism, or horrid exposures of folly are not the criterion: the Maker, criterion of creation, is also criterion of judgment, of the end as of the first, for He is Alpha and Omega. His grace to give an offering for sin composed of Himself, become man in large measure, precisely to do this, makes the end available, this one, to have the glorious impetus of creation at peace, freely with its Maker, through redemption. There are no conscripts (Psalm 110).

But let us return to the concept of a creation idling along, a "finished" thing that refuses to stop, utterly disparate from the Bible.

Imagine now,  if I am writing a book. Someone perhaps thinks both ignorantly and speciously of my being limited by all sorts of rules - before I create it - appertaining to what I am about to do, and constraining me while I do it. Certainly the NATURE of the natures, people and environments,  which I am inventing in my book has my chosen means for its expression; but so far from controlling me, so that I have continually to "interfere" with them, they are my select methods, subject always to my free roving imagination, for instituting what I want. It CANNOT be interfered with as an entity until it is THERE.

The interference concept, whether applied to the works of the Creator of the finished creation, or to the imaginary self-creating nature which has null to show for the adventure,  is mere muddle. The only interference in view in this issue is that from the imaginary new-creating bundles, supposedly there to act, each in its day, inscribed in DNA or in whatever other way, is the application of such a concept to reality, a sort of inventive static, an irruption kept over time, knowing its time, having time to apply itself.

God INSTITUTES and CONSTITUTES His creations, their systems, laws, modes, controls, interactive potential, modes of stimulus,  capacity where applicable for instinct, thought, command of their own, ideational felicity, originative capacity and so forth, in body, mind and spirit (cf. SMR pp. 348ff.)., and to speak of interruption of what is already THERE in order to PUT IT THERE is a fascinating degree of confusion and infusion of a different world view entirely, into biblical specification: it contradicts the nature of God and His works as there revealed, and provides an almost farcical subject of system, in a profound model mix up.

The Biblical  Model has God think what He wants, institute ways at will, create with no specification limits to His own action, just as He will. There is nothing to inhibit, nothing standing beforehand, nothing to confront: for this is in the beginning. If you want to go before the beginning of creation then you go before anything is, and so far from interruption as the thoughts prepare, there is rather the  ERUPTION of these thoughts into reality and its state of being, IRRUPTION of that reality into existence, and of interference there is none at any point. Interfere with your own prepared plan in executing it ? It is one, God is one, execution is by will and power, and what is denied is transformative modes of progression of living things, since these biblically depicted and empirically found proceed after their kinds, being set down as an author does set down, what he wants.

Indeed, in accord with the Second Lsw of Thermodynamics, they deteriorate over time, and this poses a threat in time to the human race, which so far from making these sophisticated advances, torn out of imagination, is incessantly failing more and more in its DNA (cf. Waiting for Wonder Appendix).

With God there are ABSOLUTELY no limits (Psalm 115). The destiny of what one creates is to be founded (when one has done it), used (for its designed purpose) and discarded (when that is done, whether to museum, library or to the dust-bin).

Creations do not make their own destinies; though it is true that they may select the way to assignable destinies, if given liberty, as man is. What then is the future of a created nature, an authored and instituted complex, a proposal become actual, according to the operation of mind and power, imagination and desire, purpose and provision of the source of existence and information, which also, does not make itself!

What is the biblical destination for the earth, for 'nature' which in fact is composed of a vast multitude of separate natures in enormously brilliant situations, a deposit of majestic mind and glorious imagination ? What is portended for our example, this world ? What is the specification, for example, in Romans 5, II Thessalonians 1, Revelation 20-22 ?

What DOES happen AFTER the creative surge is CORRUPTION which of necessity, comes after the designed and designated realities which constitute this world have come to be. Freedom's misuse by man has led to an fine pace for deterioration in that a curse came upon the race, even the soil, and made toil the norm, pain the practicality. Everywhere you see it: the marvel and its corruption; the wonder and its affliction; the beauty and the distortion; the opportunity and its abuse. Both appear, creation and curse.

That results from the marvellous tenor of creation, in which the priceless gift of freedom is invented, so that a person can consider what God has done, and decide to defect, like someone of a nation, knowing much, who decides to  come  under the aegis of another power, and betrays the first. You cannot however change God (cf. Acme ... Ch. 8), and all that is changed is your listed and actual 'country' of origin into a former country, while you move to a 'country' of your own choice. Since your land of origin, your Author, is the eternal God, then such change is against your own construction, though using it, and hence pejorative. As wisdom declares in Proverbs 8, "All who hate Me, love death."

Continuity, then, according to Denton's summary in his evolutionary crisis volume, is found only in the mind of man. That appears to be satire. Discontinuity is the actuality.

Thus Denton rightly and brilliantly showed the features of discontinuity and the absence of examples of the opposite to an extreme point. He limited the continuity concept, relative to the institution of the various levels of life, the concept of  things constantly moving from this to that as they go on to be there, to its entertainment in man's mind.  That, and not in 'nature' was its repository.

This evidently stinging rebuke to the manifest nonsense of gradual change to effect composite systems which have to be mutually adjusted and do not appear in stages empirically, is worthy. Man invents ideas; but it is God who invents man, by creation. His steps as in Genesis 2:1ff., are as outlined in Genesis 1, and that applies to all  creation, we read. Indeed, in John 1:3, we find that the whole CATEGORY of things MADE is derived from the living WORD of God. IF it is a made thing, then HE made it. If something in the universe of given nature, would claim to be a made thing, then it is nothing: for nothing was made without Him. Moreover, it is MADE in the past, says John 1: HE made it. Not only is it a category, if made, made by Him; but it is time oriented: if such an instituted thing is there, He made it, past tense, it is all over. Emphasis could not be more emphatic.

Contributions to the making do not come from the made, since what they we starting to make, would be THEIR domain; but this is denied. To be sure, the potential within them, to move about (as with giants as noted in the Bible) is an inherent adaptability, but of KIND change, not adoption of response within the kind of character given, this is ruled out. Information theory confirms this, and this is natural, since information requires an enormous amount of WORK to be produced (cf. Ch. 3 above). In creation, it involves words which are noted as instituting sovereign commands which come to pass.

Other steps are not noted in the account of it, the stages being statedly as given (i.e. Genesis Ch.2 says this of Ch. 1, concerning the whole).. Things continuing after their kinds are noted. The Greek term for creation utterly, as in Colossians 1, similarly indicates what God has to say about His own work. Ideas of biblical bits and pieces procedures, in one way or another, are entirely missing, and to apply one of Denton's own statements (about gradualism), these exist only in the mind of man, not in the text of the Bible. Nor are then visibly operative in the realities of life.

The thoughts of God are in His own manner, deeper beyond conception than those of man, and yet since we are in His image in the biblical model, they are recesses for action via purpose (cf. Isaiah 55:6-11, Micah 4:12, Jeremiah 19:5, Isaiah 46:10).

Now if Denton or anyone else wants to imagine scenarios in which bits (cf. *2 below) are made which work a bit and not a bit the way it is intended that they should in statedly COMPLETED CREATIONS, so that what they are now doing has constantly to be interrupted in order to redirect them, by strange programmatic bits from the abyss of imagination, like the ultimate in micro-management with its intolerant and intrusive horrors: then that is his affair (cf. Nature's Destiny p. 282). For this there is neither warrant, evidence nor biblical basis. It is a theory present in the mind of man, not in the works to be considered, from the mind of God, nor in His word.

It is the exact opposite of the Bible. ALL concept of interruption and continuing creation is averse to the Bible, whatever the imagined mode. Creation is finished, done, the entire category of it, as itemisable elements, is over. Nothing interferes but sin, and judgment.  Some spectre calling it on to greater things, or information bureau releasing updates,  some programs interfering, each in its own way, constitute assuredly an interruptive device. It is strange that Dr Denton speaks so much against a whole series of interruptions, incorrectly attributed to the Bible, , when the Bible pointedly omits precisely this, and the opening up of closed bits of advancing code, would work precisely in this way!

In the Bible, wholly to the contrary of Denton's concept, there is NO divine interference. Creation is NOT interference, and it specifies creation FINISHED, by FIAT put there, and in KIND specified from the first, for the last. Man is as static in a sinful state needing redemption, as unprogressive in kind, as the mountains. He is made to be of an extraordinary, God-seeking kind; messes it; misses its first objective (Genesis 3, Romans 5); has to be given remedy so that he may be restored Titus 2-3), and in this, being called, he may become a child of God, a permanent resident, restored to what he first was, sealed with a purchase price and regenerated back into full functional felicity with the God of his creation, first amid trials, then in the destiny appointed. Genes and earth may become polluted, and he corrupted; but neither earth nor man advance. Knowledge as God declared in Daniel 12, certainly increases. Its use becomes more and more recklessly fit for the pit (II Thessalonians 2, Matthew 24).

What Dr Denton criticises as if in the Bible,  is thus precisely what his own model appears to have, and what the Bible utterly does not teach, the contra-evidential theory, seems intent on securing for itself! In this respect only, in this matter, one can agree with him! Interruption like that is a empty voyage of heavy sailing, marring marvels with change, altering meaningful continuity with irruptions.

It is just a trifle confused  to take the opposite of what is given in a source, the Bible in this case, and to  argue against that source in terms of the inferiority of its presentation, in terms of design, as if the very thing he appears to have in mind for his own theory,  were a great advance on a biblical depiction,  where it is utterly absent!  It is not so much the pot calling the kettle black, as the pot calling the steel ruler insufferably clumsy.

It is precisely because it is opposite, the Bible to this misapplied criticism,  that it is neither apposite to the text, nor conceivable as a mode from an all-powerful, all-knowing Being who invented our sort of time (Romans 8:39), in which you have to wait for things to come, a LIMIT. To such things, God is not bent, since HE makes limits when there are to be any, and that is the BIBLICAL depiction of God. WHO, He asks is His counsellor (Isaiah 40), WHO, He demands, will deliver out of His hand. If,  He declares,  He WORKS, and WHO will  reverse it. If HE says 'finish' then finish it is, and if He says and it is done, so it is. Imagination is notoriously bad as an intrusive interpretation of something outside itself! whether it be a scientist's imagination, a priest's or that of anyone else. Fidelity to model is essential; and to empirical fact. Neither is gained by the invention of man being read over the account of the invention of God.

The latter declares Himself in word and deed; and how magnificently both match! (cf. The gods of naturalism have no go!).

He is the God of irresistible power,


met by no obstruction to His determinate will (Isaiah 43:13),


who elected to create liberty (Colossians 3:10),


so that in mankind


He could be lampooned, misunderstood, hated, reviled, subjected  to pseudo-tele-psychoanalysis or any other irrelevant and presumptuous treatment (cf. Ephesians 4:17-19, Jeremiah 23) at their own will;


or loved and worshipped among His radiant glory (Job delineates the matter deeply;
Ezekiel 20:33-44, esp. v.35, 33:11,  Isaiah 55 state it simply). 

In this sovereign and specified creation, with no substantive preludes but just His own thought, the limits of the psyche are formed, and the licence of liberty (cf. Licence for Liberty) is instituted, allowing for unprogrammed election, on review and on imagined grounds, of another being as a god, instead of God. Guilt is in type the exhibit of the wildness of such thoughts, whether it concern man or God, as the one assaulted or mistreated. Recall is the attestation of the REASONS for the choice and the studied prioritisation of principles which are then at will followed. Sin inhibits, certainly, but it also exhibits what is available, however delusive the results of such misuse of the truth (Matthew 13:15ff.)..

God is not limited to time and before all time with its inhibitions and limits and waiting modes, He declares that He has foreknown all, those who are His and those who are not (Ephesians 1:4, Romans 8:29ff.), and works all things after the counsel of His own will (Ephesians 1:11). Included in this is the nature of His creation of man, as a being, as an entity, as a fiat formation: He made man in His own image (Genesis 1:26, Colossians 3:10), capable of conversation, information, understanding and in a measure of independence, also of fallacious and needless misunderstanding! He does not alter nor does the image in view move upward ... to what! What then ?

IF,  He declares in Christ, concerning a group of persons, these had not heard His unique words and seen His unique actions, THEN they would not have HAD SIN. But now, since they had both seen and known and still irrationally reject Him, "they have no excuse for their sin," John 15:22ff.. Imagining things and attributing them to the Bible is a fruitful work for confusion, but does not cease to be a classic case, citable to students, for MODEL-MIX, as one of the cardinal errors of aborted logic.

It is surprising to find it here; but then man moves, sometimes almost like the wind-swept waters. It is great indeed that when he is moved to find in Christ his Rock, redemption and repenting receives Him as Lord and Master without pollution from elsewhere and alien principles, procedures or ideas, as Creator and Saviour, then for that person,  the anchor is fixed (Hebrews 6:19, John 5:24, Ephesians 1:11). Like kinds in creation, so there are kinds in eventuation. Some are for His glorious presence for ever; some have prescribed another way, for themselves, using the very glory of His creation of freedom, so to treat Him. He made it all whole and intact, including the power to project mere imagination and worship that, or make oneseslf subject in thought to it, and to ignore both His word and His ways.



The reader may like to visit a review of a second work by Denton at





See Ch, 3 above, *1 on 'bittism'. Bits of information supposedly lodged in some primal type so that they can be carried for long without being used, or without most of them being used, so constituting a burden on building, a subordinate inferiority in which process is empowered and programmed in keeping for its day of glory,  is a strrange machination in the mind of man. This unobservable idea, kept in the template of the human mind but not apparent in the working of the successive generations of biological bodies, is a desperation conception. It is some thing to come up and declare itself from time to time, supposed instead of the creation being made competently with kinds of reaction and response integral to its being from the first, as found in practice. This type of concept, an apparent foster-child of Denton, is alien to observation and Bible alike.

In terms of the latter, they are just as disjointed from observability as stem cells would be which make new KINDS of creation, not modes of finding original specifications for this or that. Such types of conception then become  a matter in which not ADJUSTMENT in terms of information already there, but CREATION of entire novelties of type, yet to be found, is to arrive unsolicited because pre-programmed to come, each in its day. This, it is a thought based on desire, not design, and assuredly utterly disparate from biblical fiat. It is far harder than making a thing of versatility and type, competence and creative sufficiency, which needs not arcane and remarkable inputs in this secret fashion, scripted for use down the centuries. Biblically as observationally, things are relatively robustly made by creative fiat without need of gradualistic conception at all. The Bible is as foreign to this as to any other form of naturalistic creation. No such exceptions or inceptions are noted there! As to the visible universe, He SAID and it was DONE (Genesis 1). Kinds then continued.

The finish of creation was then announced. ALL things, in nature, are BY and through Him (John 1:3); none is by itself, of itself, none is a mother born in a child, a serial creator put in mystical and unseen ways, into the womb of actuality, which does not even show. If it is a created thing, HE DID IT.

Moreover from the first He has DONE it! All things WERE MADE BY HIM, John 1:3 declares. What could be clearer! The murk is in the mud of


unempirical supposition,


unevidenced transitions,


unavailable evidence and


preference for maze, above simplicity, another creation without basis,


intrinsically making itself, from a format far harder than mere creation to make,


never showing itself in action,


never to be found in demonstrable exhibition,


never with any logical foundation.

The sudden eruption of completely new things, as supposed to be the case (cf. *1 above), is in a different category to the adaptation of the old ones; these new kinds are as fairy-tale in character as the gradualistic change, justly dismissed by Denton. As if that, so this from him is way beyond anything to be seen and shown and operative.

After all, versatility provisions to enable rehash of what is there within limits of contrivance and manipulation, is not a matter of making the things which have such versatility themselves. Versatility is not creation; shuffling is not institution of what is to be shuffled. There are limits to what may be done by variation on a given theme. Arrangements of music or anything else, are not their creation, but their adaptation. To make types from prototypes is one thing; to initiate the latter is quite another.

Further, how hard is it to contrive all this into an imaginary code, to be released at odd points by interference, over centuries, when it is so relatively simple just to order what is desired, and institute it by comprehensive power as declared in the Bible. Imagination can create a lot and see what gives no attestation; but in man, universes are not included. For that you have to go to the Nature-Creator, or come to nothing, which has no credentials for making anything, whether by manifest methods, or by imagined ones. Imagination is helpful in creating universes, but it is far from sufficient to do so; and its rovings are far from attestation of what has happened, what may be seen, found operative at the level desired, and called into the world of empirical fact. For that, we stay with kinds and provision for responsive variability of each of that kind, which continues, as stated from the first, and found to the last.

Teleological contrivances always face, apart from the evidence, the difficulty of impetus to be given to what is there, to upgrade it, its engineering, despite its omission from sight, and to manage to upgrade by managing an insertion into exceedingly complex and inter-active phases of control already present; and in any other creation, unless you know all about it, such super-sophisticated, mentally alert intervention is exposed to ruination, not advance.

Doubtless that is just one reason why it is not found, nor the means shown to be operative! But what of this highly intelligent nostrum ? Consider the case. What then of the upgrading by the facility-MAKER ? IF anyone, or any imagined centre, source and directive power to imagine and to prescribe the scenario,  does not have such recherché knowledge, then it is a prescription for pollution, if not total dysfunction. It is meddling with what is not there, giving assignments to parts of it, to make the rest, prior to inception.

It is just another shunting of necessities for creation, to bits within it, and giving them a greater need in construction!

Besides all that, the teleological thruster -


for this imaginative and most intelligent Being has to be around to provide
the purpose and intervention to create the whole, so that it might be there,
and each part and all given the design characteristics
to make its character precisely what is desired -


is all the more needed with such a vastly increased information burden to impart,
and such being burden for its inception and reception.


It  has to be MOST knowledgeable about it all, in this type of shunted case under review,
even doing things harder in challenge than needed for the actual Creation:
a godlet, entity, making a 'creation' with advance specifications
included those for their day of advent, from time to time!

Yes, it is high farce, but then, it does not matter what intelligence anyone has, it is a deceptive path, into which many proceed as into a thicket. In such cases, you gain a baulking procedure, where the only source with such power being sidestepped, the question is begged, the need is forsaken, the realities are pigeon-holed and detail is provided for what has no way to arrive! Nor does it suffice, its very features being first provided, free of logical basis, an irrational conundrum, pursued as if its givenness were to be ignored, forgotten, stamped TOP SECRET, or otherwise put in place, somewhere, anywhere ELSE.

Everything from the institution of delimited being to power to contrivance by intelligence to purpose is ignored, and set in what has no basis, in order to make the rest from the basis, arriving from nowhere. Since the start is mere question begging illusion, bereft of causality for its limits, laws and other containing dynamics and forms, the details are merely a type of repetition, like saying this: if 2 + 2 must not, for cultural reasons, equal four, what MUST they then equal!

It does not matter what timing devices, sustaining modes, anti-confusion methods be inserted, by the imagination, into the creation that itself is taken for granted, or what additions, as a sort of information overflow for future use, these to to provide and prevent miscarriage of various imaginary missions to come, as equally what invented facilities to provide for what sequential arrangements, what sources are to be postulated to be active in due course.

In short, it does not matter what extra and massive burdens be placed on this imaginary DESIGN, what hidden DATA are to be found for the imagined transmorphing, or what evidential absentees become a parallel burden, to this imaginary construction; nor what disadvantages of complexity, a challenge in itself, what information distribution, equipped with pause and act equipment, nor for that matter whether information be said to come from aliens, panspermia units carrying it (don't worry about THEIR source). Whatever be chosen by the imagination, it is all just an incubus to creation, making ludicrously expanded demands on the CREATOR of the whole thing, without acknowledgement.

It is rather sad really. Nothing alters. The same creation is needed as an outcome, the same information, or more, and the same causality, You simply expand the problem, and unrefine by pure imagination, as always drawing on limited variabilities as if these provisions inbuilt as they visibly are today, in the observably variable features of common man, were current creation and not brilliant and discernible adaptive criteria, to give more endurance to what is there.

The need is just the same, wherever imagination chooses to make it rest outside causal need, like someone retired before his work is started, in avoiding the issue with natural sources as barren as always, with no less need to create and equip these than before. You just have to have a greater burden at the outset to obtain everything, and at the onset of life, to give it all the ingredients we have seen, vast in information, control, law, plan, procedural minutiae, formatting, mathematical splendour, miniaturisation genius, synthetic systems correlated, linguistic exhibits of vast scope and interlaying controls. Increasing the need, you ignore the necessity.

This super-god to be substituted for the actual one for no reason, except avoidance of the name and functions, while still using the latter, with its super-charged inscriptions  is merely God debased in name, and an illusory substitute able to set creation as it draws it into existence, with advance media controls, an invention if not in intention, then superfluous to the evidence, required to act wantonly beyond the need. An intelligence without any insight, here lies a very marvel of technical contrivance: short-sighted and without a site or base, serving as a vacuous and nebulous idea for the invention of the mind, attested by nothing, a gift like the rest, and as natural a gift for this foozled focus, coming from nowhere, merely part of the self-making totality, spawn of nothing

There is, however, an end; what is the end, the destiny ? It is not an eventuation, of what in the first place did not create itself before it was there to  do so. It is in fact a declaration of the state of the case, an affair either of divine grace (as was creation in the first place, for I, for one,  am thrilled to be alive, nor am I alone), an issue of saving from the sin that interferes with truth and wants its own way. That is one end. It is this, with God, author of creation and restoration, or it is something else.

Ah, but what is that other issuance, result, end ? What is the result of rejection of a sublimity of grace where God put Himself in the place of many, and offered pardon to all ? (Matthew 20:28, 26:28, Isaiah 53:1-6). In this negative case, wantonly bereft of grace, unwilling to be pardoned, such as these persons ultimately are,  left to their loss, they come to be appointed to their place. if grace and peace is rejected where it MAY be found (Isaiah 55), then the result is an affair of shame (Daniel 12), unremitting because categorical (Mark 9).

There is an end; Alpha is followed in the end by Omega, the First by the Last! as in Revelation 1:13-17, 2:8, Isaiah 44:6. God having declared it all into being, and spoken its laws and forms and features, functions and ways into existence, His own power the servant of the aim, has also declared for that existence which has access to Himself by the nature of its creation, mankind, yes persons, also has declared duty, design and destiny. The glorious thing is that we may reject one inviting destiny to embrace the other. If not, then with themselves the imaginary arbiters - for imagination is not limited to pseudo-creation, there are many who spur on to pseudo-autonomy which also buzzes in the human ear, sometimes with all but overpowering loudness, awesome amplitude! But we do not in fact have autonomy to play God. The delusion is disastrous. The realities, being missed, like a tree beside the road, soon a source of impact for a straying car, do not go away. They are there for impact if desired...

God does not go away. Wisdom is needed at the first for the works shown at the outset, and it is eternally His, the source of all being and creation, eternal with no need to 'arise' from anywhere; and it is not found in some quiddity, some oddity, some scarcely definable force, equipped in an actual personal type of beckoning, shoving, inclining something moving up a floor or two. Wisdom is found in the Creator at the outset, with His own onset, with just provision just for a spiritual reset, when sin gives way to redemption.

This,  or else the residual road leads to the destiny which besets, when myths are trusted in, as foretold in II Timothy 4:2, and go the way of all myths. Here is the giant absence, the due darkness fit for rejection, which culture often manages to make the rejection syndrome, like a plague for departing man. The darkness does not comprehend (John 1:1-3). Left void and vicious, ere ideas about origins and begettings, which fail the causal test, the specification test, the verification test, the validity test and the initial input test, themselves the spooks of philosophy (The Way of Truth and the Way of Error Ch. 8, *2, What is the What to the Chaff, Chs. 3-4). Yet mercy remains throughout the Age, for this is the desire of the Lord, His provision. If like an injection, it is a stop or go matter; if like love, it is there or not; if like obedience, it is the case or not: then so is it as free as the water of a mountain stream, fresh from the snow (Jeremiah 18:13-14, 2:13). Pollution is common however.

You want that ? Then you can have vain philosophy: I will have Christ Jesus my Lord, performer in attested power, healer of pathologies innumerable, fulfiller of prophecy, Maker not only of life from His own eternal life (I John 1), but of its redemption from His own action (Romans 3:23-27), providing life that lasts forever.



On the visible and invisible, see It Bubbles, He Calls, It Shrieks Ch. 9.



It is grimly entertaining to consider the omissions of the merely mathematical depiction of life, terrestrial life and its origin, as if it were merely or even chiefly a matter of bits coming alongside one another, whether in principle you want a cell or a society of cells as base for a person's actions.

Let's consider the type of the matter, by the end of it. You will never reach the end unless you begin, nor the terminus except you have sound method, and you need all as the spawn of what starts, which being the basis for all, must be adequate. The philosophy of bits is a bitter pill for realism, and it refuses to swallow it. It is like insisting that the contents of a chocolate box need separate work from the box; and that the box needs work too... It is worse than strippers; for these have underlying body: this has nothing to underlie, and stripped it is not there, for it was clad in imagination only.

First, the realities of life are downgraded in an apparent attempt to minimise what is needed. Mind is rubbished in effect, as a matter of the chatter of matter, with no realisation of its depths and magnificence in analysis, criticism and review from a different viewpoint, to which its cogent, cogitative, investigative, analytical and formulative powers admit it. Spirit is made a spooky thing, instead of the full scope of inventive, innovative, creative, imaginative, conceptualising, enterprising domain of purpose that it inhabits. Bits are made the marvels, as formation is considered, as if their alignment were simply a numerical odyssey, like a kid virtually worshipping the bits of his bike. Which bit was the original ? which propelled the rest into being ? Which is the archetype, which the basis of this creation, the bike ? In vain, would anyone tell the confused mind of rapture, that no part started any part, but all were conceived in mind, drawn from what is no part, and derivatives of industry. The origins become so conceptually confused that the nature of what is there is transmorphed into the nature of what was able to put it there. What of such actions ?

Three allies in motion are fudged as to origin and placement: matter as a gift from nothing, mind as a derivative by nothing, and spirit as an additive with no assignable cause; and all as a self-production from the realm of nothing; and where anything - as usually everything - to be found in this field is taken, is taken for granted.

The systematisation, originality in the speciation (types of bike in the analogy, which alike as they sometimes are, do not make one another), design input into differences, design NOT being a mindless, more than stultified additive that just gets around somehow. The staggering laws concerning, or linguistic controls over the bits, and their correlative contents for co-operation of the various systems, this too is taken apart, like a spare wheel, and left on the ground, which in the case of this naturalistic model, is not there.

Some appear to  imagine that if you could get enough simple points, bit by bit, to assemble themselves from the ordnance store, or whatever has the right sort of bits, when you come to creating the universe (the essence of this model is to ignore the store), and put them individually together, each of the wiser class carrying its due information set for what it has to do, and each such WITH this information set beside the other, that ho presto, there is man, or whatever you have in mind to cause to be.

To be sure, groundless ideas about twisting the arm of nature, first before it is there, and then when it arrives from nowhere, are in vogue, the schools of thought on this vacuous subject continually in controversy, the one with the other, since vacuity has no defining limits; but that is merely a matter of method never to be found operative in practice at the originative side, which is the point at issue

(cf. The gods of naturalism have no go!, Secular Myths and Sacred Truth Ch. 7,
Wake Up World! ...4, 5, 6, Glory, Vainglory and Goodness Ch. 1,
Delusive Drift or Divine Dynamic
Ch. 4, News 44,
The Unsearchable Riches of Jesus Christ
Ch. 7, Life, what is it ?, SMR Ch. 2).

Life is to come in bits, in surges, in alien format (the former using magic or equivalent, no assignable cause), in a sort of inadvertence of something that is not there, in hideous monsters, virtual libraries of possibles from nowhere, as variations in nothing and so on, as if fuss and frivolity were the only alterntive to scientific method, rationality and ... God. As it is the case, it is certainly not surprising that it is found to be so, the exponents of these clashing ideas misled in principle, having no place for their feet, some lamentably agitating more, some less, in the dust.

 Indeed, the missing source of the bits, enterprise, association, systematisation, linguistic control, they seem to waver around nothing, or substitutes which merely beg the question, as if the answer to a sum, were simply to re-state the question!

Such oddities seem profoundly present, for the scientific fiction writer, including many who do not care for the name, or the discipline of avoiding its relevance to their products in this field. Such are many of the culturally popular and educationally trivialising procedures that are fatuously famous, provided in your imaginary scenarios of HOW THINGS CAME TO BE. In practice, that is not what is attested in observable evidence. We do NOT see the creation of such materials, since as the Bible and nature both show, the one by declaration, the other by omission, that is past. Nor is there any evidence of such marvels by a nature self-contrived from nothing, or question begging plus nothing do the job, even if this were not irrational in any case.

The living things actually come with information equipment attached, plans on board, in multiplied sites, so that they may continue. It is needful however, when you want a yacht with plans for making new ones and for voyage possibilities on board at the outset, as a sort of gift, to have someone well equipped to make it for you, and to have the will to do just that. But let us imagine, as so many now do, in the delusive name of 'science', in fact merely a mischievous and misled segment of it which has departed from scientific method, while really many of its disciples are writing sophisticated and not very interesting novels of unwarranted and unworkable suppositions, violating basic scientific laws, and invoking unavailable evidential support. It is all supposed to take so long that you never see anything making itself and its information additives (cf. The gods of naturalism have no go!).

In reality, the source has to be in view for it all, rationally indicated evidentially from all sources, verifiable and valid, if we are thinking and not merely blinking at the task and the challenge. Thus the thing in view, it has to come, but is not scientifically to be confined in advance, as by a surge of philosophic tantrum, to various types of reductionist oddities, not experimentally or rationally to be found at work on the affair. You do NEED evidence. You are not logically able to indicate through  some psychic thrust in your autonomous being, that the only evidence to be considered must come from only from one type of source (cf. The Way of Truth and the Way of Error Ch. 8, The Great Divide ... Ch.2 ), the product, as if what put it there were foul play, even to ask!

Dictation is not discipline. What is the use of saying this ? that It simply MUST be from nothing (though that is a contradiction in terms), or from bits that were manufactured in ways they prefer not to consider, put together in ways never attested, for reasons not given, so leaving a hole in the whole heart of the matter. What then ?

Of course, in fact, if you or any kind of creation WERE there to do it at the first, you could not, since even now those who would seem to many to have it all before them, are almost reverential at times, about how very much they do not know concerning these affairs.

However, if you were to be gifted with near infinite knowledge of such technical matters, and of course with the WILL to get it done and the PURPOSE to have envisaged it, and the VITALITY to secure it with available energy for such types of purpose, and with the power to make an analysing instrument which could reflect on all you make, one called MIND, you would still be far off. YOU have to have mind at the first to understand its prowess and so be able to invent something for someone else with the same precious and interpretive gift. You HAVE to have it at the first, when you are ALL there is to make, what it takes; for there is then nowhere else to get it.

You would equally need the power to make a SPIRIT so that your product could be a person, and not a series of mysterious programs, invented by a script writer, whom you did not bother to seek, meet and understand with awe.

Thus you would need to be able to make spirits to be competent for the results achieved, the works evidenced as duly installed in themselves,  by those who like to talk about such things. For this, you would need an amazing capacity, or power to co-opt resources from their source. You would need to find somewhere, somehow, a power to institute what is not contained by delimiting factors of your own thought, or statistical devices, but what was possessed of originality. It would not at all be like being a teacher and having bundles of personal creativity to help form and attune. Children are NOT a given in such an imagined situation, as putting you at the head of nothing, and looking for you to make something, since you yourself would not be nothing and would be able to be considered for the invention and entity-making job.

However, even then, since you are not the originating spirit for spirits, but merely one of them, you are faced with other powers and procedures, such as might prevent your attainment of such incredible knowledge as spirit-maker would require. Thus, even if you were gifted with all the facilities noted above,  but were still in some sense you, a new-comer on the scene from a prepared source (it is a fact that you have not lived from eternity), that would not be sufficient to represent the Creator. You have to have a background adequate to provide not only multiple elements, resourced, sourced, enabled to function, characterisable, but those persons also to be set in operation which are able to vary from your own thoughts substantially, to defy, assail and hate you, if not love. Hence these, though of limited power, and subject to power not their own, need to be able to use what you make to diversify from you, reject you, lie about you and seek to suppress you. In this regard, they must be able to act apart from you, and every control of yours that would merely tame them, despite all your best endeavour to mould them.

In short, they must have liberty such as you display to defy, decry, deride, love for unsound reason, hate in much the same way, OR with reason, and to decide what sort of reason appeals, or is acceptable. If in ANY way, it is simply a question like this: As you mould, so the thing made is told, and so acts, whether directly or via a series of communication provisions, but what then ? Then you or any so acting, are merely a day-dreaming self-contradiction in this, however indirectly your control may be forged. It is STILL YOUR WILL. In that, you fail in such a mission, even if greatly endowed; you fail as a spirit maker.

Thus, as a composition, not the Creator: if, I say, you had all this, and assembled it all, so becoming an aspirant god (but not the everlasting and foundational deity, who is not made, so that anything else can be), you would still lack this ultimate power of unlimited capacity to make what is not MADE to act, but given spirit, thought, mind and volition to follow plans, whether of revolt or worship, irrationality or reason, pettiness or pomp. Of gods, there are only, apart from the Everlasting God, fictitious varieties, afflicted with aspiration passion but not endowed with power or existence before time to make it all in time and so taking time in hand, send it off into the temporary field which we for our part, all inhabit. Even as one of these, would-be gods, for our interest, objectified into existence, a person still would fall far short in terms of need as a base.

If you were YOU, however much increased in knowledge and understanding, you would still AS you, be a creation,  a creature, not the ultimate, not someone eternally self-existent, dependent on none, on whom all depends. You COULD only do therefore what is given you, and since to be given what God is, is impossible for you, to take an illustrative case, since you came INTO time by permission and authority of another, that would not be enough to enable YOU to make the creation, the universe. An expanded YOU is not good enough in KIND. The power to make what you are is categorically beyond you, your spirit coming or going as it will, as its Maker will, subsiding or colliding. You are not even the master of yourself, let alone of all, or others, and no amount of power would make you so. That is what you in fact are. That is the nature of the 'natural' person.

Nor would it be enough to create the universe, even for the Lord Himself, just to juxtapose all the bits, from atoms to organs, from bodily parts to cerebral containers and storage units, placing them in order, and then proceeding from these to mind, and from that to spirit, unless you were non-created and eternal spirit, the Source, categorically above a mere created spirit. That is limited in power, enterprise and quality. It is  one that merely is organising what is to be, as far as it can, yet unable to make what entirely in terms of yourself, is distinguishable as a contestant in principle, person and desire. It cannot make itself or its type. It cannot even do it,  being set limits of understanding, when given a copy of a creation such as itself, still not comprehending the genesis of personality, spirit and mind, merely some of the ingredients for their expression; and that imperfectly.

In other words, vast as are the powers for this, for even certain elements of creation, and enormous as the donation of these to any person would have to be, to achieve even a beginning of creation, there is still more needed. Not only do you have to add mind and spirit, with a degree of genuine autonomy, but you have to START the life process, to make it go. In a car, you have to have a starter motor, a driver and skill in sending the thing here and there. With life, you have to have more than its implements- vast and superhuman as the necessity at that, still is - you would need the facility to make it function, before it had ever done this. A plan is one thing. A building is another. But to CONNECT the various types of power and provisions, and mutually assembling these, even to render them subject to a master plan which also included a starter, and a user, this is ever so much more. You need the connectibles of power and law as well to be present, in order to make the connection, so that the need is substantial and systematic, both.

God brilliantly conceived, created and set up life, including every part, every information centre, virtually the entire plan for the physical set-up in the case of man, in every nucleated cell - like bricks manufactured by a brick-factory owned by the architect, inscribed bricks. Such bricks, a vast number, would have their plans for the overall construction, printed in them; only in terms of the product man, these plans would be in multiplied into volumes of commands made viewable by those who beheld it, through exquisite exhibits of miniaturisation. All this would need to be set up, as ALSO started in its particular and overall functions. The product has to be such that it contains means for USING all the ENCODED information which each bit noted contained, and its orders therein are received and interpreted correctly by the allied language recipients, in whatever site, organ, cerebral or boidly, required. Then,  in terms of this formulation and information, it requires the provision for growing it so that the ENTITY concerned, ape or butterfly, or man - would be a going concern beyond its own mere time of life on earth. Made in observable reproduction, from its earliest elements, such as cells, it proceeds so that as it grows it is always LIVING.

That is just a species of duplication, for a creation. However, life is imparted at the outset in terms of cells that live, and these were created in such a way, that as living components they could be inter-related. In the case of human cells, the method used is to act in terms of  the plan imprinted in the cells, in building them up in the various phases and stages of increasingly complex inter-connection, starting exceedingly small with a tiny group of cells, propelled into togetherness, through purposive persons.

In the case of life, however, unless the cells were put together all at once, you do not have life by simple juxtaposition. You have bits. If any bit is a living bit, it came to be ALIVE in terms of information, activation, generation and co-operation. None, Denton tells us, is primitive; they are already as found, ALWAYS exceedingly complex living things. Evidence is not otherwise, for those interested in it.

Whatever is done, what is needed to have our sort of body, life's sort of physical equipment, is heavily inclusive of information, organisation, application, co-ordination, at the individual cell level (once you have made these to live, each being as Denton points out, rather like New York city, each one). It has to get it somewhere, and not from you, if for presentation, you are taken as emblem for a 'natural man' and product. It needs to be stamped multiply with the plan, and then to follow it in engineering reality and with mathematical action attuned to the specifications and lo and behold, the thing arises. The REPRODUCED thing ... but what of the original ?

Let us continue with our imaginary creator, conceived in the end of part of the creation of its man-product, granted it is there to have anyone to make things as part of its product, a not so trifling gift. Since HOW it came is the question, having it there in the main at the first, you still have merely a question ignored. Nevertheless the instructive pantomime continues.

The 'natural' creator needs to understand it, to start it, and with man, to give to it, its psyche, spirit and mind, all correlated, co-ordinated, co-functional, and to give potential priority to spirit over mind, and this over body, except for the fully automated sections, which merely follow the plan imprinted into them. With that you just need to make, at an early point, all the laws and regimens of matter in various degrees and methods, outside the special little system in view, and to have these flowing along for reception of your prodigious living creation, except of course as noted, that it would lack spirit, since though you are one, in part, you are not capable of making it with the liberty which you show in criticising, rejecting and chewing over and into various ideas, and choosing the principle you will following in trying to make this realistic enough to pass muster with other minds, doing much the same thing.

You, then, categorically, even given ALL these powers, COULD NOT do it. The only One who could, is attested by the fact that this PRODUCT is what He has called into being.  With creation, once you have the relevant powers, it is not so impossible sounding. You just are required to have infinite intelligence, understanding, creative wisdom, comprehensive purpose, just to BE God and behold, there you are, you do at last have what it takes to make such a creation as the one which stands (or sits) before us. Now the person, gifted with deity, could acquire these things from nowhere for the model, create them by adequate power, precision and purpose.

Without this infinite addition to knowledge and elevation as to Being (to infinite personal character and capacity in KIND), you still alas lack, and so have to invent individuals arising by automation, magic, or programs as supplied, except that their capacities must transcend directive programs, spirits forming beyond mere automation, persons even happy to assess and criticise automation. The final step therefore remains for our naturalistic creator, as part of what is here and simply donated to the systems, missing from his prowess, even given the world or the supernatural powers to make its basic format.

In short, you would still have to BE God and it is only then that you can act like Him!

Alas, truncated quasi-creator, your products remain as far beyond you as your own soul. Can this know how to make what otherwise is merely an assemblage of bits, so that it becomes a co-ordinated, directed, dynamised, mutual responsive, in toto manageable set and then create its specific spirituality and configure it and mould it till it has that overall personality or nature-type, along with dog or cricket, which you have in mind to have, provided you could collect the  unique power to make its own formulae, format, and some functions and with this.

You just need then the quality of being which is NOT created, having knowledge without limit of what spirit is and how it is to be created! how to make spirits which can deride your control, deprive you of company and delete your significance in mind, every time will so works, and principles opted, so suggest! Then your product would be more then doll or clown; it becomes an item transformed into more than an idea: a being, with characteristics and a living unity of operation. You had, however, to become God to do it, infinite expansion of some knowledge and skill being qualitatively inadequate in itself, for the type of being you are.

Certain things follow. For instance, there are significant limits to this creation by the natural man. Let us look at some.

You don't need to be clueless, far less brainless and even mindless for this. Even the considerable leap in intelligence from guided matter to a moron is as useless as derisible. What is needed is the infinite original, to originate, and this not all coming from what is thought of as already produced, as if the answer to a sum were the same as the question! What has the answer as part of it, is merely a logical side-stepping, ignoring of the question, which points to what remains a logical necessity, not a sub-moronic version of nothing, raised from non-existence to witless and confused horror, at the task required of its absentee wits.

Instead, however, of an apotheosis, when some pretended being will act to inform himself he is god (as is now progressing in advanced cultures,  with many approaching this witless work), though observably a thing found in what has been placed there, as in II Thessalonians 2:4-10:  instead of this delusion, it is realistic simply to worship the God, of all sufficiency whose works attest Him, as does His word. It is He who needs nothing like that, having been the eternally adequate One, subject to no limits, author of all rules. He, being able, and everlasting God, who made each integrated and characterisable whole, at each level, many to provide for action at the outset,  does not need to elevate His quality of being and life to make all that is made. It is because He has it that that can have from it, what is the desired derivative. You don't need the precision and the power of elevators when everything is deposited from you. It is the creation which is elevated into existence, grades, qualities, laws, with the one language of deposition (cf. Jesus Christ, Defaced, Unfazed ... Ch. 4), with activation, and given such mental and spiritual powers as relate aptly to each grade of being.

This One designer-creator-constructor,  of one mind and with no limits, being there eternally, requires nothing to add to its own nature. For the creation, this Creator presents its advent, each major category set with provisions for movement about a centre core, so enabling it to adapt.  This is so,  just as nothing, alternate venue for creation, needs the opposite to set about things. It needs everything added to it, a virtual further question-begging presumption and invalidity. It is not only inept, unscientific in method and a retirement from the question, before doing any work, but the furthest from rationality and due method you could go. It is as if a pupil, asked for the square root of one thousand to a hundred decimal places, were to say that on consideration, he found it best to postulate the answer, nothing.

Avoiding this diversion  is an elimination of waste of time, and wastage of logic: turn from such nature myths, and they come in many varieties of the same TYPE of delusion, and you are no longer at the outset on the path of logical error, making things up freely, without the discipline of thought, verification and validation. This applies for any call for such things from ANY who is merely a created person, not source of all, for anyone physically coming in by cell creation and division, with additions at stipulable times (cf, Psalm 139, which specialises on such features and foci).

Let us then look about us.

Get the principles, systems, expositions of logic all in place, and then attend to getting the stuff needed to get it all going, in characterisable total-life qualities and powers, even  with a magically made matter doing it for them as mouldable basis, though it is even less able than they are to create! let alone before it is there and you get what your smuggled in ingredients allow with your invented and invested personality there, also a given, to manage some more for you. After all,  on the nature myth stage, among the specified, you also need to possess power to activate what is made, even after components are assembled like a deaf congregation, waiting to hear. Electricity, given a responsively contrived starter motor or feature, works sometimes at one type of level.

For life you need the RELEVANT type of starter, which activates spirit from its Maker and Mentor, with Spirit. Needed no less is the mind starter, since this is a living thing, not merely instilled with a programmatic mode moving towards a recognisable logic, but with a personalised mentality, fit for the lively spirit to use, so that both may apply themselves not only to the started equipment, linked to both mind and spirit, but susceptible to their likes, and indeed to what is quite unlike themselves, to see it, find it, discover its meaning, type of life, and rejoice in the totality with a life like, in some ways, but utterly different in others.

That is how it is with originality, and our world and its biological, physiological, psychological, moral, mental and spiritual aspects is full of it. It displays imagination as rainbows display elements of light. An assemblage with the co-ordinating MAKER of it, and of its being assembled, with integration for its compositable differentials, and paths for its massive functionalities, with stratification for its levels, and hierarchical ascent to the most directive aspects, it is the work of an assembler, as creator, as mentor as spiritual progenitor, not by systems, which lack imagination, but by the Spirit which this One is, ordering and organising without subverting liberty or descending to mere directives.

As assemblage, what is there does not gain ears, receptors for transmission of speech, by a generous donation from nothing, by its being nice and organised and already sitting there for you, with its own engineered version of  miracle. It has to come!

Indeed, on the contrary to any facile imagination, it has to evince intense mutuality of concord, record (for the DNA) insertion (for the laws), conversion (of different schemas for varied creations of system, so that they mutually interact or tolerate each other). There is always the stereotypical to align in every aspect and way, whether the language for command, the principles for operation, the laws for "wrong way, back back" signals to the jarringly exotic, disordered or disjunctive. The assemblage has to be intimately aligned with the billions of parts prospering in self-supporting integrity, and meaningful outcome.

It is important indeed, that it needs this mutuality of language* (in the DNA) and logic, power and aptitude,  to bring things about at our level,  as it does to require, before this, the gen,  what is to be spoken into command, to come into existence. The casting of life, in particular, into existence requires


not just particles,


nor just cells, themselves enormously subtle contrivances in depth,


not just inter-systematics,


not just linguistic-style command,


not just integration of commands with respect to each other,
for beneficient working in unison


and where applicable, sequence, with fitting, interlocking issuances of many steps
with various laws, controls and supervisory actions already in place,


not just an end that functions at once competitively in a series of other creations,
and in terms of the whole structure of laws:

it requires as it is launched, an understanding movement that enables all mutually,
including the entire domain of mind and spirit relevantly, and all in terms of growth potentials,
if later, or in originating actuality, if not,

in style like any other creation... of profundity, immensity of conceptual co-ordination in command, designable outcome and total eminence of result. It requires the activation into procedure but what is capable of launching it, its background, its methods, its coherence, its language, its interpretation capacity for language, its effectuality, its sequential genius, its multi-disciplinary interweaving in cohesive overall management, and with mind and spirit, such is capable in its own right, of its own level of creativity, a alpha thrust, a totality launch, a myriad mutuality cause for beginning,  that moves it into motion. When it comes to the entirety, existence is not an easy thing to produce, but having a base, and all the superstructure, a wholeness of myriad parts, an inter-relationship on a legally cohesive basis, a vast reservoir of commands, some spoken as word, some as law, it requires what is competent at all levels to initiate its commencement.

In this we face the fact that in the origination of this massive reality, as distinct from its procreation or continuation, there has to be an absolute launch, integral for all systems, and activating for all.

Any postulated naturalistic source, it cannot grow into itself from nothing, antilogy being excluded in logic, nor has it ability to make time first,  as a product, since it is already governed by it, and there is a specific time-creating capacity required, not a continuity one. This is required for a chronological creation, such as this, along with every other component; just as growth for its naturalistic part requires the institution of the entire overall innovative system, with this additional marvel, self-reproduction in the case of the myriads of design types in life (cf. Deity and Design ... Chs. 2 and 8). The simplest way of putting the resultant is that God, with all relevant powers, created the universe, in the beginning. It is also the biblical depiction, free of all the fecund foolishness (as in Romans 1:17ff.), of trying to get nature or any part thereof, to make itself before it was there to do it.

Smuggling  things into the scene and making up scenario is just languishing confusion. The ultimate, intimate, infinite, eternal Being with all the needed powers, just has to BE there, a home for studies and creation, with no homework, since all the powers of creation and composition, are but derivations of its functional totality and perfection.

It is beyond the realm of creation, that creation might be.   Personality is simply one of His ultimate productions, understood and known intimately.               



See on this cultural cult, this quasi-religious enterprise, SMR pp. 150, 330-331.